alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 13.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Petrobras Energia Participaciones, S.A. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Annual Report on form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003
(the "Form 20-F") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: June 30, 2004                 /s/ Alberto Guimaraes
                                     -----------------------
                                     Alberto Guimaraes
                                     Chief Executive Officer

Dated: June 30, 2004                 /s/ Luis Sas
                                     -----------------------
                                     Luis Sas
                                     Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# The Wheel of misfortune

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  The Wheel of misfortune 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Safeguards & Security 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1980-1990 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  151 × 41 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  019699465.jpg; 019699465.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 71 (Friday, April 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18751-18752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6968]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted via teleconference. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 2, 2007, at 1 p.m., 
Eastern Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227, or 
(414) 231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel (TAP) will be held Wednesday, May 2, 2007, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time 
via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the Joint 
Committee of TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-
1227 or (414) 231-2360, or write Barbara Toy, TAP Office, MS-1006-MIL, 
P.O. Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-2105, or Fax to (414) 231-2363, or 
you can contact us at www.improveirs.org. Due to limited conference 
lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone 
conference call meeting must be made with Barbara Toy.
    The agenda will include the following: discussion of issues and 
responses brought to the Joint Committee, office report, and discussion 
of next meeting.


[[Page 18752]]


    Dated: April 6, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E7-6968 Filed 4-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 54809.

#### General Aniline & Film Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 160650-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

When the case was called for hearing there was no appearance by plaintiff. An examination of the record disclosing no reason for disturbing the decision of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
# C_2007155EN.01000602.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-376/06) (1)

1

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2007/C 155/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes and F. Fraústo de Azevedo, Agents

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take within the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 28.10.2006.

1

---
No. 44164.

#### Protests 825796-G, etc., of Ira G. Katz (New York).

*289Opinion by

Bbown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314) the wool hoods in question were held dutiable at 33 cents per pound and 45 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1115 (a) as claimed.
EXHIBIT 8.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|    |  |                                                    |  |             
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|No. |  | Company                                            |  | Jurisdiction
|1.  |  | China Linong International Limited                 |  | BVI         
|2.  |  | Land V. Group Limited                              |  | BVI         
|3.  |  | Land V. Limited                                    |  | Hong Kong   
|4.  |  | Hong Kong Linong Limited                           |  | Hong Kong   
|5.  |  | China Linong (Hong Kong) Limited                   |  | Hong Kong   
|6.  |  | Land V. Ltd (Fujian)                               |  | PRC         
|7.  |  | Land V. Ltd (Zhangjiakou)                          |  | PRC         
|8.  |  | Xiamen Land V. Group Co. Ltd                       |  | PRC         
|9.  |  | Fuzhou Land V. Group Co. Ltd                       |  | PRC         
|10. |  | Land V. Agriculture Technology (Zhangzhou) Co. Ltd |  | PRC         
|11. |  | Land V. Agriculture Technology (Ningde) Co. Ltd    |  | PRC         
|12. |  | Linong Agriculture Technology (Huizhou) Co. Ltd    |  | PRC         
|13. |  | Linong Agriculture Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd   |  | PRC         
|14. |  | Liyuan Agriculture Technology (Quanzhou) Co. Ltd   |  | PRC         
|15. |  | Putian Land V. Group Co. Ltd                       |  | PRC         
|16. |  | Liaoyang Liyuan Agricultural Products Co., Ltd     |  | PRC         
|17. |  | Linong (Sanming) Limited                           |  | PRC         
|18. |  | Linong Agriculture Technology (Fuqing) Co. Ltd     |  | PRC         
|19. |  | Linong Agriculture Technology (Xianyou) Co. Ltd    |  | PRC
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ALI MUKHTAR OSMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10031 

D.C. No. 

4:17-cr-00198-JAS-DTF-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Soto, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Ali Mukhtar Osman appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges his jury-trial conviction and sentence of time served plus ten days for 

unlawful bringing in of a firearm or ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(l), 924(a)(1)(C). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-10031 

Osman’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along 

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Osman the 

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or 

answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason
Kulas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the
period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-2 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed
by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment
of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015
**Exhibit 15.2**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-173327) and in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-191325)of Adecoagro S.A. of our report****dated April 27, 2016 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.

 

PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO. S.R.L.

 

by /s/ Marcelo de Nicola (Partner) 

Marcelo de Nicola

 

Buenos Aires, Argentina

April 27, 2016
Case No. 6,858.

#### HUIDEKOPER v. STILES.

[1 Wash. C. C. 135.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1804.

Ejectment — Service of Declaration — Power of Justice of the Peace.

1. Justices of the peace of the state of Pennsylvania may receive proof of the service of process of ejectment, issuing out of the circuit court of the United States.

2. What will be deemed a sufficient service of a declaration in ejectment.

[NOTE. Cases Nos. 6,851 and 6,852 were similar suits, involving the titles to different parts of the same original survey, but the decisions in these cases turned upon points not involved in the case at bar.]

Motion for judgment against the casual ejector, on notice to the tenant in possession, served and proved by the affidavit of the deputy marshal, before I>. Meade; who, by a certificate of the prothonotary, is stated to have qualified as a justice of the peace, of the common pleas of Crawford county. Levy objected, that a state magistrate has no power to take proofs of service of process. His having a power to administer the oath of office to the deputy marshal, in a particular case, — 4 Laws [by Folwell] 274 [1 Stat.624],— shows that he has no such authority in other cases. He also objected to the affidavit, that it did not state positively, that the tenant found in possession was tenant in possession; it is left to implication; it is said to have been served on A. B., tenant in possession. 2 Bac. Abr. 162. The affidavit should be positive, that J. D. was tenant in possession, or acknowledged himself to be so. Affidavits of service on A. B., tenant, or C., his wife, or the wives of A. & B., who, or one of them, are tenants, are not sufficient. Id. In one of the cases on which this motion is made, the declaration was delivered to the father of the tenant in possession, on the land, and in the house of the tenant in possession. In another, it is served by nailing the declaration on the door of W. M., on the premises. But the defendant does not state that the house was empty. If the defendant did- not live there, but the marshal knew where he lived, it ought to have been served personally on him.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

THE COURT

granted a rule to show cause, at the adjourned court, why judgment should not be entered up.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN W. KREBS, II, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

20 USCMA 487, 43 CMR 327

No. 23,527

April 9, 1971

*Major Alan W. Cook*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Colonel George J. McCartin, Jr.,*and *Captain Thomas R. Maher.*

*Captain Mark Rosenberg*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Colonel David T. Bryant, Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway,*and *Captain Benjamin G. Porter.*

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

On trial for several offenses in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including larceny of “goods, of a value of about $1,678.00, the property of the European Exchange Sys*488tem,” the accused entered a plea of guilty. He was convicted as charged, and the conviction was affirmed on intermediate review. He now contends that the larceny specification is legally deficient because the allegation as to the nature of the stolen property is too vague to convey that degree of “information concerning the nature of the *res”*which the law requires. United States v Autrey, 12 USCMA 252, 254, 30 CMR 252 (1961); see also United States v Curtiss, 19 USCMA 402, 42 CMR 4 (1970).

The crucial questions in determining the legal sufficiency of a specification are whether the allegations reasonably inform the accused as to what he must defend against and whether they will adequately protect him, in conjunction with the record, against a second prosecution for the same offense. United States v Autrey, supra ; United States v Suggs, 20 USCMA 196, 43 CMR 36 (1970). Here, before accepting the accused’s plea, the trial judge inquired directly into the defense understanding of the nature of the stolen property. He ascertained that defense counsel knew that the “goods” consisted of a “tape recorder, tapes, watches, rings, tobacco items.” Still, he informed defense counsel that if there was any doubt “as to what goods were stolen” he would direct a further Article 32 investigation “to have it developed.” See United States v Suggs, supra, at page 199. Defense counsel assured the trial judge he had “no question” as to the precise nature of the property involved, and he had “not been misled in any respect” by the general description of the stolen property as “goods.” It is manifest, therefore, that the accused and his counsel knew before trial the nature of the “goods” allegedly stolen. Since the particular classes of articles constituting the “goods” were described in the record, it is also apparent that the specification and the record will protect the accused against a second prosecution for the same theft. United States v Alcantara, 18 USCMA 372, 40 CMR 84 (1969). The essential requirements for a sufficient pleading are thus satisfied.

The decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is affirmed.

Judges Ferguson and Darden concur.
No. 52735.

protest 140521-K (New York).

#### The Danwill Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the papers failing to disclose any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Threatened & endangered plants of Wyoming: keeping plants in the picture

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Threatened & endangered plants of Wyoming: keeping plants in the picture 
                    -           Alternative Title        
                    -  Threatened and endangered plants of Wyoming; Keeping plants in the picture 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Bureau of Land Management 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  2000-2010 
                    -           Country        
                    -  United States 
                    -           State        
                    -  Wyoming 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  185 × 46 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  190762910.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
Before the Second Division,

August 27, 1941

No. 46281.

#### Petition 6193-R of Samuel S. Allen, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of C. Cicchetti Co., Inc. (New York).

*258Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Three witnesses testified on behalf of the petitioner, one of whom was the president of the importing firm which is now in bankruptcy. From the record the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that found by the appraiser was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.